SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Politics : Foreign Affairs Discussion Group -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: JohnM who wrote (64471)1/5/2003 4:40:22 PM
From: paul_philp  Read Replies (2) | Respond to of 281500
 

But when the intent of US actions is to act militarily to manage oil prices from the Gulf, to the benefit of the US, it's hard to call it otherwise.


I disagree with your premise. Can you provide evidence to back up your claim?


And when that intent is backed up by an intent to topple a regime (yes, Iraq), what else would you call it?


War. The US has many strategic interests for wanting to topple Saddam. Of course, there are many countres where the US has a strategic interest in seeing a regime change. The difference between Iraq and the rest of these countries is simple. Iraq attacked Kuwait. America was allied with Kuwait. American went to war against Iraq to protect Kuwait. America won the war. Iraq sued for peace, signed a peace treaty and then never complied with that treaty and never accept the burden of peace.

Friedman makes a nice point when he says that the US could claim to be acting in the interests of the global economy if we coupled our Iraqi actions with other actions that reduced the demand for oil;

Friedman fails to make the case that reducing the demand for oil would be good for the global economy. It may seem self-evident to you but it is far from self-evident to me. In fact, most schemes to reduce the demand for oil seem likely to both fail and be economically harmful.


Actually, Paul, you are doing what you do all too frequently, you are jumping to conclusions.


By anti-American, I mean you assume that America is in the wrong. You assertion above that the American intent in the Gulf is to manage the price of oil. I consider this an anti-American (but not un-American) statement. Your suggested criterea for judging what you call American imperialsim, you fail to mention any interests, intents or needs internal to America. Again, this absence demonstrates an anti-American (but not un-American) attitude. I am not jumping to conclusions. I am simply taking you at your word.


The US has presented itself, however, as being above all this, as preparing the grounds for a new kind of state in the ME, one that is secular, democratic, and one that would use the oil resources for the Iraqi people. That's a very, very high bar to get across. It appeals to the US public, definitely. But is that what we will do? This particular administration has been very adept at doing one thing and saying another. We'll just have to see how they handle the Iraqi future.


This is the crux of the matter. In somewhat partisan language Ignatieff highlights the key challenge for America today, the trade-off between stability and democratic rhetoric. I would restate this as the percieved trade-off between economic self-interest and democratic commitment or narrow self-interest versus broad self-interest. For the past 60 years, the paradigm has been economic self-interest OR democratic commitment. I believe that 9-11 shifted the paradigm to economic self-interest AND democratic commitment. It is no longer acceptable to sell one out for the other. This is exactly the paradigm shift which I believe Bush made on the morning of Sept. 11.

This is no small change. The strategic, logistical and practical implications will take years to fully understand. It does mean peace between Israel and Palestine, a peace that gives both nations the hope of a successful future. It also means holding the ineffective UN to account for it's failures. In the end, it may mean pulling out of the UN. It will mean learning how to help Iraq build a successful democracy that can compete in the global economy.

To some degree Iraq is a simple problem. I am not at all sure how to inspire the notion of secular government in the Islamists world or how to inspire China to build a transparent and fair system of property rights. However, failure to achieve these goals will likely lead to civil war or (continued) tyranny and instability. It is a great big messy world and I am a glad that there is one country capable of providing leadership. I am confident that the false trade-off between narrow- and broad- self-interest is understood (although far from institytionalized).

Paul



To: JohnM who wrote (64471)1/5/2003 4:54:26 PM
From: Maurice Winn  Read Replies (4) | Respond to of 281500
 
<font color=green>Hey, I demand an American Empire. Americans have a poor opinion of empire and imperialism because they think the British Empire was a bad thing and they have 4 July celebrations each year and recount glories of Paul Revere and the wonderful Founding Fathers' Declaration of Independence.

Now that they find themselves doing just what the British did, there is perhaps a bit of cognitive dissonace. Empire is bad but we are building an empire &)(^^*^%*)^% brain spazzz. Therefore, we aren't being imperialistic or building an empire, but those damn Iraqis are going to get it anyway, now that we've dealt with the Taleban. Next, North Korea. Then, get the America's Cup back. China needs a bit of attention in regard to Taiwan. Oh, the Foreign Office on Whitehall is going to be busy ... ooops, I mean the Foreign Office in the White House.

The USA with 4 July was really just like an adolescent outgrowing Mum's strictures and Dad's counsel. Now, they are all growed up, and just like Mum and Dad are doing the same as Mum and Dad.

A good explanation in post 64472: Message 18403697

Our family is fully invested in the American Empire [via QUALCOMM] and so far so good.

Now, QUALCOMM is set up in China with Richard Sulpizio sent out there to keep things on the straight and narrow, just as my maternal grandfather was sent out to Dalian and then Shanghai to keep the oil flowing for the British Empire, returning to Europe to deal with the hun in France in WWI. Then, retiring to NZ, which had been taken under the British Crown by agreement with the local blokes [who were cannibalistic stone age tribalists at the time].

They had to get out of China because the damn Japanese were trying to build an empire, but not with the principles of habeas corpus, liberty, voluntary trade and the like as espoused by the British, but by death and enslavement.

The problem with an American Empire as so far established is the lack of judicial review of alien subjects. The worry of we aliens is that the Americans will be a bit like the Japanese rather than the British, who adopted the aliens as full British Subjects. Guantanamo Bay is okay at present; they have only come for the bad guys and I'm not a bad guy [and haven't been accidentally in the wrong place at the wrong time or maliciously identified as a bad guy by somebody with a grudge]. Then they can come for the Moslems, Christians, Chinese, Homosexuals and Jews, because I'm none of those. I'm sure they'll be nice to me.

So roll on the American Empire. I'd hoped for a reconstituted United Nations, but lack of leadership is taking longer than I can wait. There's more than one way to skin a cat or build a world government. Rome wasn't built in a day, but the USA is certainly doing it quite quickly.

Anyway, it's not an American Empire, it's a Mqurice Empire - I've just hired the Americans to do the dirty work for me. Just as I switched allegiance from the British Empire when they continued to go wrong, I'll switch from the American Empire when it goes off the rails.

The next empire, to replace the American Empire, will be the Cyberspace Empire - ultimate ruler of the world. We the Sheople and It, symbiotic [though the It part of the system won't be biotic, being a superglobalintegratedcomputerneuroptic intelligence]. Already, we are forming it. The Zygote is well underway and unstoppable, though there are mutterings in government circles about how to stop it. Hahahahahahaha!! We will rule the world. You cannot stop us. Hahahahaha!!!!!

Mqurice

Meanwhile, back on the relationship of intelligence to evolutionary pressure and why different races [or any group of humans] have different IQs. Further proof of the evolutionary advantage of intelligence. Notice how the evolutionary pressure is all on the males other than a nurturing female who was overly dedicated to her task:
Message 18403648



To: JohnM who wrote (64471)1/5/2003 5:07:03 PM
From: quehubo  Read Replies (3) | Respond to of 281500
 
<<But when the intent of US actions is to act militarily to manage oil prices from the Gulf, to the benefit of the US, it's hard to call it otherwise.>>

Do you really believe this, or is this just Bush bashing?

What expectations in Afghanistan are left unfulfilled for you today? I would like to see more progress restoring it but I think attention is justly moving to other hotter fires. Even the NYT had an article recently commenting on the positive improvements being made there.

Iraq is not about cheap oil. It is about ensuring a secure supply which directly effects prices. A primary concern with Iraq is both increasing its exports and making sure the revenues go to good use. This has not been happening to the expected extent in many years.

Low oil prices wont support the revenues needed to restore Iraq and also will drive down the value of the billions of dollars of investments BIG OIL continues to make in international investments.

Once Iraq is undercontrol, our activities there will fall under tremendous scrutiny. I doubt exploitation of Iraqi national's interests would last long.



To: JohnM who wrote (64471)1/5/2003 5:27:24 PM
From: carranza2  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 281500
 
But when the intent of US actions is to act militarily to manage oil prices from the Gulf, to the benefit of the US, it's hard to call it otherwise.

Lol!

You are really wound up today, John.

What evidence do you have for this "manage oil prices" bit?

Sure, it's about oil. But what you don't understand is that it is about preventing Saddam--presumptively armed with nukes--from controlling its flow to the detriment of just about every Western economy.

Your paranoid formulation suggests a nefarious scheme that brings John D. Rockefeller back from the dead to impose rationality on the oil market to keep oil prices low for the benefit of the US.

Did you really read Pollack's book? I suppose damned little of it sank in.

Do you remember '91, when Saddam, without nukes, was at the Saudi's borders?



To: JohnM who wrote (64471)1/5/2003 5:39:44 PM
From: stockman_scott  Respond to of 281500
 
A New Generation's Vietnam

By David Hilfiker
Pacific News Service
January 2, 2003

alternet.org

I have just returned home from a three-week trip to Iraq organized by the peace group Voices in the Wilderness. I toured the country's cities, suburbs and rural areas, meeting everyone from housewives to teachers to government officials. I feel now as I felt a generation ago during the Vietnam War: We are destroying an innocent people in the name of geopolitical "realities" that, ultimately, make no sense.

President Bush says that the danger to the United States of "weapons of mass destruction" justifies the devastation caused by a 12-year American-led campaign of bombing and sanctions. The idea would be laughable if it were not taken so seriously by so many in America. Iraq was a third-rate military power before the first Gulf War and the sanctions. The former U.S. Marine heading the previous U.N. inspection teams says 90 to 95 percent of Saddam Hussein's remaining weapons of mass destruction were found and destroyed. Almost no one thinks Iraq possesses nuclear weapons or the capability to get a missile anywhere near the United States. Aside from Great Britain and Israel, virtually no other country perceives Iraq to be a danger worth the sacrifice of hundreds of thousands of innocent people.

I spoke to one woman who lost her daughter three years ago in what the Pentagon called "a mistake." She lives in a suburb of Basra in the south in the so-called "no-fly" zone, a band of Iraqi airspace forbidden to Iraqi military flights and patrolled by U.S. and British warplanes. The stated purpose of the U.N.-instituted zone was to protect potentially disloyal tribes from Iraqi government attack. But 12 years later, American and British planes continue to bomb the area regularly in response to anti-aircraft fire from Iraqi guns.

The guns fire because Iraq doesn't recognize the zone and perceives the planes as intruding into their air space. It's a purely symbolic gesture, out of pride I suppose, since the planes fly too high to be reached by the antiquated guns. Iraq hasn't downed a single manned plane in 12 years. But the United States bombs in response anyway, and civilians are killed with some regularity.

This woman's young son, who was with her when we talked, lost half of his left hand in one such attack. He has some 30 pieces of shrapnel in his back. Voices in the Wilderness is trying to get him to the United States for restorative surgery. I'll be bringing back X-rays and some records for doctors back home.

I've visited pediatric cancer wards in both Basra and in the northern city of Mosul where the incidence of certain cancers (especially leukemia) is three to four times higher than before the Gulf War. The exact cause of the rise has not been scientifically determined, in part because baseline demographic statistics no longer exist in Iraq, and also because no one has done the sophisticated studies. One likely cause is the radioactive depleted uranium dust from American munitions used during the Gulf War. Increased pollution (due in part to the sanction-induced lack of scrubbing equipment in oil refineries and cars), poor nutrition, waterborne contaminants and general ill health surely play a role.

In a Basra pediatric hospital, I talked to a very poor, uneducated woman in her mid-30s from a remote village. Dressed in a black abeya that covered everything but her face and hands, this woman sat cross-legged on her 6-year-old daughter's bed, watching her child die of leukemia. The pediatrician explained to me that of five chemo-therapeutic agents for treating cancer – all of which have a finite shelf life and must be used simultaneously for proper effect – only three will likely get through. The other two will be delayed until the others have expired.

We visited a number of water treatment plants. Some were damaged in direct bombing attacks during the Gulf War. Many others, however, are just falling apart with age because sanctions deny the requisite spare parts or the manufacture of new ones. Without purified drinking water, the mortality rate of children under five years of age is now two and a half times higher than before the war. Thirteen percent of Iraqi children now die before age 5, usually due to contaminated water.

In 1996 the Oil for Food Program (OFFP) was initiated, which allowed Iraq to sell a certain amount of its oil. About a quarter of the earnings go to pay reparations to Kuwait, and another percentage pays U.N. monitoring expenses. The rest is to be used to import food, medicine and other humanitarian goods. Washington claims that if Baghdad used the funds properly, the humanitarian crisis would be alleviated. But many U.N. studies have shown that Iraq uses most of the funds appropriately. The Iraqi food distribution program, for instance, is considered the best the United Nations has monitored.

The problem is that most of the goods that can be imported under the OFFP have to go through a U.N. Security Council committee, which deliberates in secret and where the United States (along with the other permanent members of the Security Council) has a veto. A November 2002 Harper's Magazine investigation by Joy Gordon reported that the United States routinely blocks or puts on hold billions of dollars of goods on the basis that they could be used for military purposes (dual-use).

Children's vaccinations, for example, were initially blocked on grounds that they might be used to develop biological weapons. European biological weapons experts flatly deny this is possible, and the decision was immediately reversed once the Washington Post reported it. Gordon writes that even water tankers are blocked because they might be used to carry chemical weapons. Truck tires, milk-producing equipment, you name it – all have been blocked or put on hold because of the possibility of dual use.

It all sounds too petty to be true, yet the stories are consistent with U.N. documentation and reports in the foreign press.

Another problem is that although the OFFP allows Iraq to exchange oil for food, medicine and equipment, it doesn't allow Iraq to receive cash from the sales, so there is no money to pay people to transport goods, install and maintain equipment or even train operators. Since Iraq can't sell oil for cash, it also has no source of foreign currency, which has destablized the economy. Before the Gulf War, the Iraqi dinar was worth three dollars; the rate is now 2,000 dinar to the dollar.

The net effect of the first Gulf War and the ongoing sanctions – a devastated economy, contaminated water, malnutrition and cancer deaths – is well over 1 million deaths in 12 years, many times more than the deaths caused by the U.S. atom bombs dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki combined. Unlike Vietnam a generation ago, we don't see the news clips of children dying, or the haunting image a young, naked girl fleeing a napalm-bombed village. But Iraq is still this generation's Vietnam: a senseless slaughter justified by irrational rationales.

I had a private conversation with a retired Iraqi surgeon in Baghdad, doctor to doctor. Growing up, he attended American schools in Baghdad. He furthered his education at American University in Beirut, and spent three years of surgical residency training in the United States. An intelligent, politically sophisticated man, he was gracious but direct. "The United States has always been a beacon. Your democracy is a model for us and the rest of the world. But your actions here are turning the whole world against you. You have destroyed our economy and robbed our children of hope. There can be no justification for this. You must tell Americans that we are human beings, too."

_________________________________________________________
David Hilfiker's (davidhilfiker@hotmail.com) most recent book is "Urban Injustice: How Ghettos Happen" (Seven Stories Press, 2002). Engelhardt, a former editor at PNS, is author of "The End of Victory Culture" (Univ. of Massachusetts Press, 1998).